Gun Control 1: Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang

[Kepler]

Subscribed because the topic has no natural home right now.

Obama's Executive Order of 5 January 2016.

Please discuss.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Gun Control 1: Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang

This is all I know about gun control.

Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president and CEO of the National Rifle Association, on Friday called on school officials to immediately come up with a plan to place armed security in every school in America.

“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Would you rather have your 911 call bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away or a minute away?” he asked.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/nra-...n-good-guy-gun

[joecct]

Re: Gun Control 1: Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang

Subscribed because the topic has no natural home right now.

Obama's Executive Order of 5 January 2016.

Please discuss.

Two questions:
1. If I sell you a handgun, am I classified as a "gun seller" under the EO? OK. WaPo article says no. But if I sell you my gun collection, that looks like a yes
2. What if Congress passes legislation to invalidate the EO? Can they?
2a. Does the Executive always win if he/she issues EOs to do something the Congre$$ refuses to do? Good thing or bad thing? Or, does it depend on which side of the fence you're sitting

Oh, I agree with Scooby.

How will this stop Theo the Thug from obtaining an illegal gun?

[JF_Gophers]

This is all I know about gun control.



http://cnsnews.com/news/article/nra-...n-good-guy-gun

Weird. What if the armed school guard IS the bad guy?

[Kepler]

Re: Gun Control 1: Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang

Two questions:
1. If I sell you a handgun, am I classified as a "gun seller" under the EO? OK. WaPo article says no. But if I sell you my gun collection, that looks like a yes

Here's a scanty write-up from the ABA.

According to the Times, the president plans to clarify that anyone who makes a living by selling guns must register as a licensed gun dealer who is required to conduct background checks. However, someone who sells only one or two guns could be considered a regulated dealer “engaged in the business” of selling firearms under new federal guidance on the issue.

The standards would take into account business activities by sellers, such as whether they accept credit cards, use business cards, use a website for sales, and rent tables at gun shows.

I assume there must be a metric sh-t ton of case law defining what constitutes "business" as distinct from "non-business activity." Legal eagles?

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Gun Control 1: Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang

Subscribed because the topic has no natural home right now.

Obama's Executive Order of 5 January 2016.

Please discuss.

Speaking as a gun owner, it's about *ing time. I'm very tired of the crowd that hollers about slippery slopes at the mere mention of doing anything about the issue. The NRA says "people kill people", well here you go, here's more money for mental health and an expansion of existing steps to identify the crazies. Watch, now they will holler about "Soviet psychiatry" and "no buy lists", or something.

[SonofSouthie]

Re: Gun Control 1: Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang

“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

Never seems to be any of those around.

[Kepler]

Re: Gun Control 1: Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang

here's more money for mental health

When I heard the amount ($500M) I nearly choked. To get a real handle on the deficiencies in our mental health infrastructure we probably need about $50B more. Per year.

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Gun Control 1: Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang

When I heard the amount ($500M) I nearly choked. To get a real handle on the deficiencies in our mental health infrastructure we probably need about $50B more. Per year.

It's better than nothing.

[5mn_Major]

Re: Gun Control 1: Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang

Here's a poll on current public opinion on gun controll:

Currently, 85% of Americans – including large majorities of Democrats (88%) and Republicans (79%) – favor expanded background checks, little changed from May 2013 (81%). Almost identical shares of Republicans (81%) and Democrats (79%) support laws to prevent the mentally ill from buying guns. But other proposals are more divisive: 85% of Democrats favor creation of a database for the federal government to track gun sales, compared with 55% of Republicans. And while 70% of Democrats back an assault-weapons ban, only about half of Republicans (48%) favor this proposal. due to 'no opinion results', even more Republicans support an assault weapons ban than reject it

http://www.people-press.org/2015/08/...-on-gun-sales/

[Kepler]

Re: Gun Control 1: Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang

It's better than nothing.

It is. But it blows that for the cost of the F-35 program we could put $50B into mental health per year for about 50 years, given TVM.

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Gun Control 1: Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang

Will these moves* really make a difference?
When was the last time a criminal used a "mentally deficient" person's ID to purchase a weapon? And was that weapon used to commit a crime?

These "actions" sound wonderful and make for great sound bites, but will they make an iota of difference?


*I won't question if they are an end-run around Congress or extra-Constitutional.

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Gun Control 1: Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang

Never seems to be any of those around.

Ever wonder why you never hear of a bad guy trying to knock over a shooting range or a gun shop?

Hint: It might have to do with the lawful gun owners, many with concealed carry permits, that frequent the establishments.

[JF_Gophers]

Re: Gun Control 1: Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang

The real solution is to eliminate gun owners, not guns.

Eta. Maybe require all guns to be bright pink in color. Since offing the owners will be frowned upon.

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Gun Control 1: Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang

When I heard the amount ($500M) I nearly choked. To get a real handle on the deficiencies in our mental health infrastructure we probably need about $50B more. Per year.

Isn't part of the issue that many of the mentally deficient that would've been institutionalized in by-gone days have been "streeted" by public policies aimed to give them their freedom (and ability to not be able to sustain themselves).

I can only speak for ND, but closure of the Grafton State School and San Haven State Hospital years ago put many folks that couldn't cope with living in greater society (much less tasks of daily life) back into communities. Were those facilities perfect, or even good? Looking objectively, not many were; however, in comparison to not having shelter and living under a bridge with no food, they weren't bad. Our mistake was not fixing the infrastructure systems we had.